1-4-35 

.3 


UC-NRLF 


B    3    5Tfl    173 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

ANTHROPOLCG;' 
ALFRED  L.  KROEBER 

COLLECTION 


A.  L.  Kroeb' 


MAYAN    NOMENCLATURE 


BY 


CHARLES    P.  BOWDITCH 


Privately  Frinted 


CAMBRIDGE 

THE   UNIVERSITY   PRESS 

1906 


MAYAN     NOMENCLATURE 


BY 

CHARLES    P.   BOWDITCH 


Privately  Frinted 


CAMBRIDGE 

THE   UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

1906 


Anthropology 


C  if/^(><h 


MAYAN    NOMENCLATURE 
By    CHARLES    P.    BOWDITCH 

It  has  long  been  well  known  that  the  Mexican  numeration  is 
vigesimal,  and,  as  far  as  I  know,  there  is  no  proof  that  it  was  ever 
used  in  the  calculation  of  long  reaches  of  time.  The  Cakchiquel 
numeration  is  also  vigesimal,  and  Brinton  states  (Maya  Chronicles, 
p.  44)  that  the  Maya  numeration  is  also  vigesimal,  giving 

20  units  =  one  kal      =20 

20  kal     =  one  bak     =  400 

20  bak    =  one  pic     =  8000 

20  pic     =  one  calab  =  160000,  etc. 

But  this  Maya  system  is  never  used  in  connection  with  days. 
Wherever  a  long  number  of  days  is  referred  to,  we  find  invariably 
the  following  system  in  use : 

20  units  =  one  of  the  second  term 

18  of  the  second  term  =  one  of  the  third  term 
20  of  the  third  term      =  one  of  the  fourth  term 
20  of  the  fourth  term    —  one  of  the  fifth  term. 

And  this  system  is,  as  far  as  we  know,  used  for  nothing  else  but 
for  reckoning  days.  The  only  difference  between  the  first  system 
and  the  second  is  that  in  the  first  system  twenty  of  the  second 
term  equal  one  of  the  third,  while  in  the  second  system  eighteen 
of  the  second  equal  one  of  the  third.  This  difference  is,  of  course, 
essential,  and  it  seems  most  probable  that  the  change  was  intro- 
duced in  order  to  bring  the  third  term  as  near  the  length  of  the 
year  as  possible,  and  to  conform  the  day  numeration  to  the  num- 
ber of  days  and  months  in  the  year. 

Professor  Cyrus  Thomas  is  unwilling  to  see  in  this  anything 
more  than  the  counters  by  which  to  count  the  days,  and  denies  to 
it  the  name  of  a  calendar;  but  as  the  system  of  day  numeration  is 


775 


2  MAYAN   NOMENCLATURE 

different  from  the  usual  system,  and  is  used  only  for  counting  days, 
and  as  this  system  counts  forward  in  almost  every  case  in  the  in- 
scriptions, and  in  a  majority  of  cases  in  the  Dresden  Codex,  from  a 
fixed  date,  4  Ahau  8  Cumhu,  it  seems  impossible  to  see  any  differ- 
ence between  it  and  a  calendar  system. 

It  was  certainly  to  be  hoped  that  the  designations  which  Dr. 
Seler  gave  to  these  Maya  periods  of  time  in  his  "  Die  Monumente 
von  Copan,  etc.,"  ^  would  have  been  accepted  by  Americanists, 
especially  since  very  good  reasons  were  given  by  Seler  for  their 
adoption.  But  this  view  does  not  meet  the  approval  of  Dr.  Forste- 
mann  or  Dr.  Thomas.  The  latter  in  his  "  Maya  Calendar,  Part  II.," 
published  in  the  "  Report  of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology," 
still  calls  the  period  of  20  days  a  chuen  and  that  of  360  days  an 
ahau,  while  the  former  in  his  article  on  "  Die  Lage  der  Ahaus  bei 
den  Mayas,"  published  in  Part  I.  of  the  1904  issue  of  the  "  Zeit- 
schrift  fijr  Ethnologie,"  makes  the  following  statement :  "  The 
katun  has  also  been  supposed  to  be  24  X  365  =  8760  days  long 
(and  I  held  this  view  for  a  long  time),  indeed  the  long  period  of 
52  X  365  =  18,980  days  is  also  occasionally  designated  with  the 
word,  while  the  sixth  multiple  of  this  member  or  113,800  is  called 
an  ahaukatun."  He  uses  the  terms  "  day,"  "  uinal,"  and  "  ahau  " 
for  the  periods  of  i,  20,  and  7200  days  respectively. 

Such  statements  from  such  learned  scholars  must  attract  atten- 
tion, especially  as  it  is  not  the  first  time  that  they  have  made 
similar  statements.  If  they  give  a  correct  statement  of  facts,  it 
shows  that  the  system  of  the  Maya  numeration  or  calendar  was  in 
a  woful  condition,  as  far  as  its  nomenclature  was  concerned.  It 
will  be  well,  therefore,  to  take  up  this  question  of  nomenclature 
anew.  In  all  matters  of  this  kind  it  is  wise,  while  giving  due  value 
to  the  views  of  later  writers,  to  place  the  most  dependence  for  the 
solution  of  such  questions  upon  contemporary  or  nearly  con- 
temporary evidence. 

1  See  Seler,  "  Gesammelte  Abhandlungen  zur  Amerikanischen  Sprach-  und 
Alterthumskunde,"  Vol.  I.  p.  722. 


AfA  YAN  NOMENCLA  TURE  3 

And  where  is  such  evidence  to  be  found?  Though  there  are 
several  Spanish  writers  who  Hved  in  the  sixteenth  century  who 
have  written  on  the  Nahuas,  Bishop  Landa  is  the  earHest  Spanish 
authority  who  has  dealt  with  Maya  customs  and  history.  And  the 
only  Maya  authorities  of  an  early  date  that  the  student  has  access 
to  are  the  papers  contained  in  Brinton's  Maya  Chronicles,  the 
principal  of  which  are  the  Books  of  Chilan  Balam,  which  Dr. 
Brinton  declares  "  to  constitute  about  all  that  remains  to  us  .  .  . 
of  the  ancient  history  of  the  peninsula"  as  far  as  he  knows.  Yet, 
in  making  objection  to  certain  views  of  Dr.  Seler,  Dr.  Forstemann 
says,  "  It  is  based  on  certain  statements  in  the  Books  of  Chilan 
Balam,  a  very  dubious  source  according  to  Seler's  own  assertion." 
I  am  at  a  loss  to  know  why  such  sweeping  condemnation  should 
be  made  of  these  books,  for  though  the  copies  from  which  Dr. 
Brinton  quotes  may  not  be  very  old,  these  copies  hand  down  to  us 
records  which  must  be  of  very  great  age.  Dr.  Forstemann  him- 
self quotes  from  them  with  approval,  and  it  is  certain  that  whatever 
may  be  their  historical  value,  the  evidence  which  they  give  inci- 
dentally cannot  fail  to  be  of  great  value.  This  evidence  will,  I 
think,  prove  — 

First,  that  the  period  of  20  times  360  days  was  called  a  katun 
and  not  an  ahau. 

Second,  that  each  of  the  constituent  parts  of  a  katun  was  called 
a  tun. 

Third,  that  no  such  period  of  time  as  an  ahaukatun  is  men- 
tioned in  the  Books  of  Chilan  Balam. 

The  first  assertion  may  seem  difficult  to  prove  when  in  far  the 
larger  number  of  cases  where  a  separate  katun  is  mentioned  in  the 
Books  of  Chilan  Balam  the  word  "  ahau  "  seems  to  be  substituted 
for  "katun."  This  is  true  in  all  five  of  the  Books  of  Chilan  Balam 
published  by  Brinton.  But  the  reason  of  this  is  very  evident,  for 
it  will  be  seen  by  a  careful  perusal  that  the  word  "  ahaus  "  is  never 
used  when  katuns  in  general  are  spoken  of,  and  that  whenever  the 
word  "  ahau  "  is  apparently  given  as  a  synonym  of  "  katun,"  it  is 


^  MAYAN  NOMENCLATURE 

merely  the  name  of  a  particular  katun  and  it  always  has  a  number 
attached  to  it  and  this  number  is  the  number  of  the  day  ahau  with 
which  a  given  katun  ended.  Further,  this  number  is  never  an 
ordinal  number,  as  translated  by  Brinton,  but  a  cardinal  number. 
Therefore  l,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  etc.  should  be  substituted  in  Brinton's 
translation  for  ist,  2d,  3d,  4th,  5th,  6th,  etc.,  and  in  the  quotations 
from  Brinton  this  substitution  is  made. 

It  may  be  here  stated  that  the  inscriptions  all  show  that  where 
an  even  uinal  is  given  (and  therefore  where  an  even  tun,  katun,  or 
cycle  is  given)  the  day  is  Ahau.  If  then  it  was  desirable  to  dis- 
tinguish the  katuns  from  each  other,  two  methods  could  be  used: 
either  count  them  numerically,  i,  2,  3,  4,  etc.,  or  name  them  from 
the  day  Ahau  with  which  the  preceding  katun  had  ended.  The 
former  method  is  found  in  the  inscriptions  and  the  Dresden  Codex, 
the  latter  in  the  Books  of  Chilan  Balam.  The  second  method 
would  not  be  possible  if  each  katun  ended  with  the  same  numbered 
ahau.  But  7200  is  not  divisible  by  13  without  a  remainder,  but 
equals  13  X  553  +  1 1-  If  then  a  particular  katun  ended  with  13 
Ahau,  the  next  would  end  with  Ahau,  but  the  number  attached  to 
Ahau  would  be  13  -1-  11,  or,  deducting  thirteens,  11.  The  next 
katun  would  end  with  9,  the  next  with  7,  and  so  on.  The  katuns 
then  would  be  known  as  katuns,  13  Ahau,  ii  Ahau,  9  Ahau, 
7  Ahau,  5  Ahau,  3  Ahau,  i  Ahau,  12  Ahau,  10  Ahau,  8  Ahau, 
6  Ahau,  4  Ahau,  2  Ahau,  13  Ahau,  etc. 

Taking  up,  therefore.  No.  I.  of  the  Books  of  Chilan  Balam,  pub- 
lished by  Brinton  — that  of  Mani  — we  find  in  the  paragraph  num- 
bered I  by  Brinton  "This  is  the  arrangement  of  the  katuns"  not 
"  of  the  ahaus,"  and  in  paragraph  numbered  2  "  Four  katuns  had 
passed,  etc."  not  "  four  ahaus."  This  is  followed  by  the  statement 
"  When  they  set  out  for  this  country,  it  was  Ahau  8,"  not  "the  8th 
Ahau."  And  then  follows  "  6  Ahau,  4  Ahau,  2  Ahau,  fourscore 
years  and  one  year,  for  it  was  Tun  1,13  Ahau  when,  etc."  That 
6  Ahau,  4  Ahau,  2  Ahau  refer  to  the  katuns  is  very  clear,  and  that 
4  katuns  with  the  names  8  Ahau,  6  Ahau,  4  Ahau,  and  2  Ahau  are 


MAYAN  NOMENCLATURE  5 

called  fourscore  years  is  equally  clear.  In  paragraph  4  we  have 
"  4  Ahau,  2  Ahau,  13  Ahau  —  threescore  years  they  ruled  Ziyan 
caan,  etc."     Here  three  katuns  are  called  threescore  years. 

This  would  seem  to  show  that  the  katuns  called  4  Ahau,  2 
Ahau,  13  Ahau,  were  each  equal  to  a  score  of  years  of  365  days 
each.  When,  however,  we  try  to  account  for  the  numbering  of  the 
katuns  on  this  basis,  we  find  that  the  numbers  of  the  ahaus  ending 
each  katun  would  come  in  the  following  order:  11  .  5  .  12  .  6 .  13  . 
7. I. 8. 2. 9. 3.  10. 4. II,  etc.,  while  the  real  order  is  given  in  the 
books  as  11  .9.7.5.3.  i  .12.  10. 8. 6. 4. 2.  13,  etc.  If  the  word 
"  haab  "  or  the  Spanish  "  anos,"  ^  which  occurs  in  paragraph  3,  is 
taken  literally,  there  would  seem  to  be  no  explanation  of  this 
difficulty;  but  if  we  consider  that  these  books  used  these  words  as 
we  often  use  them  now  as  meaning  approximately  "  years,"  and  if 
we  substitute  the  third  term  of  the  numeral  series  as  found  in  the 
codices  for  the  word  "  years  "  —  in  other  words,  if  we  substitute  360 
for  365  —  we  find  then  that  the  katuns  or  scores  of  360  days  will 
end  with  a  day  Ahau  with  the  numbers  11. 9. 7. 5. 3.1. 12.  10, 
etc.,  as  has  been  said  and  as  given  in  the  Books  of  Chilan  Balam. 
This  has  been  shown  by  Seler,  Goodman,  and  others. 

It  will  then  be  a  good  working  theory  that  the  score  of  360 

days  is  called  a  katun,  and  that  each  katun  is  distinguished  by  the 

name  of  an    ahau  with  its   proper   number,  with  which  a  katun 

ended.     That  the  ahau  and  its  number  are  merely  the  name  of  the 

katun  and  not  the  katun  itself  is  shown  in  No.  5  of  Brinton's  Books 

of  Chilan  Balam,  —  the  Book  of  Chumayel.     Here  in  paragraph  i 

we  have  "  4  Ahau  was  the  name  of  the  katun,"  in  paragraph  3  "  4 

Ahau  was  the  name  of  the  katun,"  and  in  paragraph  7  "  1 1  Ahau 

was  the  name  of  the  katun."     To  say  that  "  ahau  "  was  a  synonym 

for  "  katun  "  would  be  as  foolish  as  to  say  of  a  family  containing 

John  Smith,  Mary  Smith,  and  James  Smith,  that  John  and  Mary 

and  James  were  all  synonyms  of  Smith,  when  they  were  merely 

names  to  distinguish  one  Smith  from  another. 

1  It  is  very  probable  that  "  anos  "  is   merely  a  gloss  —  and   an   erroneous   one 
at  that. 


6  MAVAIV   NOMENCLATURE 

This  is  also  shown  in  the  Book  of  Mani  (pp.  96  et  seq.  of 
Brinton's  "  Maya  Chronicles  "),  where 

Par.    8  says  "  Lai  u  katunil  cabil  ahau,"  "  In  the  katun  2  Ahau." 
"      9  says  "  Lai  u  katunil  buluc  ahau,"  "  In  the  katun  1 1  Ahau." 
"    10  says  "  Laili  u  katunil  uaxac  ahau,"  "  In  the  katun  8  Ahau." 
"    12  says  "  lay  u  katunil  uac  ahau,"  "  In  the  katun  6  Ahau." 
"    15  says  "  u  katunil  ho  ahau,"  "  In  the  katun  5  Ahau." 
Also  in  the  Book  of  Tizimin  (pp.  139  et  seq.  of  Brinton) : 
Par.    6,  "  Uaxac  ahau  —  lay  u  katunil,"  "  8  Ahau  —  in  this  katun." 
"    14,    "  Bolon    ahau  —  lai  —  u    katunil,"    "  9    Ahau  —  in    this 

katun." 
"     15,  "Vuc  ahau  —  u  katunil,"  "  7  Ahau  —  in  this  katun." 
Also    in    the    first    Book    of    Chumayel    (pp.    154    et    seq.    of 
Brinton) : 

Par.  2,  "  Uaxac  ahau  —  layli  u  katunil,"  "  8  Ahau  —  in  this  katun." 
"    8,  "Bolon  ahau  —  u  katunil,"  "9  Ahau  —  in  this  katun." 
Also  in  the   second   Book   of  Chumayel  (pp.   166  et  seq.  of 
Brinton) : 

Par.  3,  "  Uaxac  ahau  u  katunil,"  "  8  Ahau  in  this  katun." 
"  laix  u  katunil,"  "  in  this  katun." 
"    5,  "  Hun  ahau  — lay  u  katunil,"  "  i  Ahau  —  in  this  katun." 
"    8,  "  Buluc  ahau  —  laix  u  katunil,"  "  1 1  Ahau  —  in  this  katun." 
"  Buluc  ahau.     I^aix  u  katunil,"  "11  Ahau  in  this  katun." 
"    9,  "  Bolon  ahau  —  lay  katun,"  "  9  Ahau  —  in  this  katun." 
"  Uac  Ahau  —  lay  u  katunil,"  "  6  Ahau  —  in  this  katun." 

I  can  find  no  excuse  for  considering  "  ahau  "  as  a  synonym  for 
"  katun  "  in  these  Books  of  Chilan  Balam.  And  a  priori  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  conceive  of  a  numeral  system  being  made  up  by  a  nation 
as  cultivated  as  the  Mayas,  by  which  the  name  of  a  day  should  be 
taken  to  mean  a  period  of  time,  with  all  the  chances  of  error  which 
might  arise  from  such  use.  Moreover,  if  this  were  the  case,  it 
would  be  natural  to  suppose  that  in  the  inscriptions  and  codices 
the  day  sign  ahau  might  be  found  meaning  7200  days,  and  yet  I  am 


MAYAN   NOMENCLATURE  J 

unaware  that  a  single  instance  of  this  exists  on  the  monuments  or 
in  the  codices.  There  are  one  or  two  cases  in  the  inscriptions 
where  this  has  been  suggested  as  being  possible,  but  it  is  very  far 
from  being  proved  or  from  even  having  strong  evidence  in  favor 
of  such  an  explanation. 

Dr.  Forstemann  says  that  at  times  the  name  "  katun  "  was  given 
to  the  period  of  18,980  days;  but  the  only  authority  for  this  use  is, 
as  far  as  I  know,  Pio  Perez,  who  says  that  some  applied  the  name 
to  a  "  lustre  of  4  years,"  while  others  thought  that  "  13  years  com- 
pleted the  katun."  ^  Again  Pio  Perez  speaks  of  "  the  cycle  of  52 
years  called  by  the  Indians  katun."  In  none  of  these  cases  is  any 
authority  given  for  this  use.^ 

It  is  probably  safe  to  say  that  any  use  of  the  word  "  ahau  "  as 
meaning  a  katun,  or  any  use  of  the  word  "  katun  "  as  meaning  any- 
thing but  20  times  360  days,  or  any  use  of  the  day  symbol  ahau  as 
meaning  a  period  of  time,  does  not  occur  in  any  evidence  which 
could  be  called  contemporary  or  even  approximately  so.  Don  Pio 
Perez  is,  I  fear,  the  only  author  who  can  be  cited  for  the  other  side, 
and  his  opinion,  though  worthy  of  being  listened  to,  is  not  to  be 
relied  upon  without  the  support  of,  or  against  the  evidence  of,  early 
authorities. 

The  second  question  as  to  the  name  to  be  given  to  the  period 
of  360  days  must  be  decided  by  the  same  authority. 

We  have  found  that  a  katun  is  probably  a  score  of  periods  of 
360  days  each,  and  it  would  be  natural  to  suppose  that  the  con- 
stituent parts  of  the  katun,  as  mentioned  in  the  Books  of  Chilan 
Balam,  would  be  these  periods  of  360  days,  but  of  this  there  is 
no  absolute  proof  in  the  Books  of  Chilan  Balam.  The  proof  of 
this,  however,  is  so  strong  in  the  Dresden  Codex,  where  the  series 
runs,  20  of  the  first  order  equals  i  of  the  second  order,  18  of  the 
second  order  equals  i  of  the  third  order,  and  20  of  the  third  order 
equals  i  of  the  fourth,  that  no  time  need  be  wasted  upon  this  part 

^  Stephens,  "  Travels  in  Yucatan,"  Appendix,  p.  439. 
'^  Ibid.,  p.  440. 


8  MAYAN  NOMENCLATURE 

of  the  question.  We  do  know,  however,  that  each  of  these  con- 
stituent parts  is  called  a  tun  and  that  they  are  numbered  as  high 
as   13. 

The  following  list  gives,  I  think,  all  the  cases  where  the  word 
**  tun  "  is  used  in  the  Books  of  Chilan  Balam : 

Book  of  Mani,  paragraph  2,  "  Hun  piztun  oxlahun  ahau,"  which 
Brinton  translates  "  the  first  year  of  the  thirteenth  ahau."  I  think 
the  proper  translation  to  be  "  Tun  i  of  Ahau  13,"  meaning  that 
I  tun  had  passed  of  Katun  13  Ahau. 

Paragraph  9,  "  tu  lahun  tun  uaxac  ahau  "  is  translated  by 
Brinton,  "  and  it  was  the  tenth  year  of  the  eighth  ahau,"  while  it 
should  be  "  in  Tun  10  of  Katun  8  Ahau." 

In  the  Book  of  Tizimin  we  find  that  in 

Paragraph  i,  "  tu  humpiztun  ahoxlahunahau  "  is  translated  "  to 
the  first  year  of  the  thirteenth  ahau,"  while  it  should  be  "  to 
(or  in)  Tun  i  of  Katun  13  Ahau." 

Paragraph  11,  "Cabil  ahau;  oxlahun  tun"  is  translated  "The 
second  ahau ;  on  the  thirteenth,  etc."  It  should  be  "  on  Katun  2 
Ahau  Tun  13,  etc." 

Also  in  the  second  Book  of  Chumayel,  we  find  in 

Paragraph  2,  "  tu  yoxpiztun  ychil  hun  ahau,"  which  is  trans- 
lated "  on  the  third  year  in  the  first  ahau,"  when  it  should  be  "  in 
Tun  3   of  Katun   i   Ahau." 

Paragraph  3,  "  Tu  uucpiztun  uaxac  ahau  u  katunil  "  is  trans- 
lated "  in  the  seventh  year  of  the  eight  Ahau  katun,"  when  it 
should  be  "  in  Tun  7  of  Katun  8  Ahau." 

Paragraph  8,  "  tu  hunpiztun  Buluc  ahau.  Laix  u  katunil"  is 
translated  "  in  the  first  year  of  the  eleventh  ahau,  it  was  also  in 
this  katun,"  when  it  should  be  "  on  Tun  i  of  Katun  11  Ahau.  In 
this  Katun,  etc."  Also  "  tu  uucpiztun  Buluc  ahau  u  katunil  "  is 
translated  "  in  the  seventh  year  of  the  eleventh  ahau  katun,"  when 
it  should  be  "  in  Tun  7  of  Katun  1 1  Ahau." 

These  two  katuns  are  evidently  the  same  —  one  date  being  in 
Tun  I  and  the  other  in  Tun  7  of  the  same  katun  —  and  yet  Brinton 


MAYAN   NOMENCLATURE  9 

translated  the  first  as  being  in  the  i  ith  katun  and  the  other  as  be- 
ing in  the   nth  ahau  katun. 

Paragraph  9,  "  tu  uacpixtun  ychil  ahBolon  ahau  katun  lae."  is 
translated  "  in  the  sixth  year  of  the  ninth  ahau  katun."  It  should 
be  "  in  Tun  6  of  Katun  9  Ahau." 

Although  Brinton  has  almost  always  translated  "  tun "  by 
"  year,"  it  is  very  evident  from  the  above  that  the  Mayas  called 
the  native  division  of  the  katun  "tun." 

It  may  further  be  noted  that  the  word  "  kin  "  is  used  for  day  in 
the  way  of  numeration  in  the  Book  of  Mani,  paragraph  13,  "9 
Imix  was  the  day  on  which  Ahpula  died  "  and  in  paragraph  13  of 
the  Book  of  Tizimin  and  paragraph  7  of  the  first  Book  of  Chuma- 
yel,  the  same  statement  is  made. 

May  it  not  then  be  fairly  assumed  that  the  Mayas  called  the 
day  or  the  unit  of  their  calendrical  numeration  "  kin,"  their  360- 
day  period  "  tun,"  and  the  period  of  20  tuns  "  katun,"  as  Dr.  Seler 
has  suggested? 

The  third  question  is  as  to  the  so-called  period  of  "  ahau 
katun."  I  give  below  all  the  cases  in  which  Brinton  has  used  the 
word,  and  in  all  but  one  of  them  the  Maya  has  "  ahau  u  katunil " ; 
and  in  one  case  Brinton  has  translated  a  sentence  as  "  it  was  the 
eleventh  ahau  katun,"  while  exactly  similar  phrases  (with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  number)  have  been  translated  by  him  as  "4  Ahau 
was  the  name  of  the  katun."  In  the  phrase  in  paragraph  9  of  the 
second  Book  of  Chumayel,  where  "  ah  Bolon  ahau  katun  "  appears, 
the  whole  context  makes  it  evident  that  a  katun  and  not  an  ahau 
katun,  if  there  was  such  a  period,  is  meant.  The  paragraph  says 
"  9  Ahau  ;  no  stone  was  taken  at  this  time;  in  this  katun  came 
the  Bishop  Brother  Francisco  Toral ;  he  arrived  in  Tun  6  of  Katun 
9  Ahau  "  ;  and  yet  Brinton  makes  it  read  in  the  first  clause  that 
while  Bishop  Toral  came  in  a  katun  called  9  Ahau,  he  "  arrived 
in  Tun  6  "  of  the  "  ninth  Ahau  katun." 

Dr.  Tozzer,  whose  knowledge  of  the  Maya  languages,  gained 
in  long  residence  among  the  Maya  Indians  of  Yucatan  and  Chiapas, 


lO  MAYAN  NOMENCLATURE 

enables  him  to  speak  with  authority,  writes  me  as  follows :  "  The 
form  u  katunil  of  ahau  ukatunil,  for  example,"  in  paragraph  3  of 
the  second  Book  of  Chumayel,  p.  167,  "  is  probably  possessive,  and 
it  would  then  be  literally  '  the  Ahau  8,  its  Katun '  (the  Ahau's 
Katun)  which  might  strengthen  the  point  against  joining  the  two 
together  as  Ahaukatun." 

In  the  second  Book  of  Chumayel,  p.  167,  paragraph  3,  "uuc- 
piztun  uaxac  ahau  u  katunil;  laix  u  katunil,  etc."  Brinton  trans- 
lates "  in  the  7th  year  of  the  8th  Ahau  katun,  in  this  katun,  etc." 
There  is  no  authority  for  translating  ahau  u  katunil  "  ahau  katun." 
It  should  be  "  In  Tun  7  of  Katun  8  Ahau,  in  this  katun,  etc.,"  or, 
as  suggested  by  Dr.  Tozzer,  "  In  Tun  7  of  Ahau  eight's  Katun." 

Again,  in  paragraph  5,  the  translation  of"  Hun  ahau  —  tu  hun- 
piztun  ychil  hun  ahau  u  katunile  "  is  given,  "  The  first  ahau —  in 
the  first  year  of  the  first  ahau  katun."  It  should  be  "  i  Ahau  — 
in  Tun  i  of  the  Katun  i  Ahau,  &c." 

Again,  in  paragraph  8  "  tu  uucpiztun  Buluc  Ahau  u  katunil "  is 
translated  "  in  the  seventh  year  of  the  eleventh  ahau  katun," 
when  it  should  be  "  in  Tun  7  of  Katun  1 1  Ahau."  Just  above 
"Tun  I  of  1 1  Ahau  "  is  given  and  followed  by  "  in  this  katun." 

Again  in  paragraph  9  we  read  "  Bolon  Ahau  —  lay  katun  yax 
ulci  obispo  Fray  Fran'co  to  Ral  huli  tu  uacpiztun  ychil  ahBolon 
ahau  katun  lae,"  which  Brinton  translates  "The  ninth  ahau  —  in 
this  katun  first  came  the' bishop  Brother  Francisco  Toral;  he 
arrived  in  the  sixth  year  of  the  ninth  ahau  katun."  It  should  be 
"  9  Ahau  —  in  this  katun —  in  Tun  6  of  Katun  9  Ahau."  This  is 
the  only  place  in  the  Maya  where  the  words  "  ahau  katun  "  appear 
together.  But  the  context  makes  it  clear  that  "  ahau  katun  "  is  not 
a  period  of  time.  The  paragraph  begins  with  "  9  Ahau,"  and 
speaks  of  it  as  a  katun  during  which  Bishop  Toral  arrived,  and 
then  proceeds  to  say  that  he  arrived  in  Tun  6  of  this  "  ahBolon 
ahau  katun,"  which  can  mean  nothing  else  than  the  "  Katun  9 
Ahau." 

In  the  third  Book  of  Chumayel,  paragraphs  5   and  6,  Brinton 


MAYAN   NOMENCLATURE  \\ 

translates  "  Can  ahaii  u  katunil  "  as  "  The  fourth  ahau  katun  "  in- 
stead of  "  Katun  4  Ahau." 

In  paragraph  7  "  Uaxac  ahau  u  katunil"  is  translated  "The 
eighth  ahau  katun  "  instead  of  "  Katun  8  Ahau  "  (note  here  that 
this  is  the  same  "  8  Ahau,"  when  Chichen  Itza  was  deserted  for 
Champoton). 

Also  "  Oxlahun  ahau  u  katunil "  is  translated  "  In  the  thirteenth 
ahau  katun"  instead  of"  Katun  13  Ahau." 

Also  "  Buluc  ahau  u  kaba  u  katunil  "  is  here  translated  "  it  was 
the  eleventh  ahau  katun,"  while  in  paragraph  3  a  similar  sentence 
is  translated  "  4  Ahau  was  the  name  of  the  katun." 

Thus  an  ahau  katun  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Books  of  Chilan 
Balam  in  spite  of  Brinton's  translation,  and  neither  is  it  mentioned 
by  Landa,  in  spite  of  Brasseur  de  Bourbourg's  insertions.  In  fact 
the  only  evidence  of  it  is  the  assertion  of  Don  Pio  Perez.  I  do  not 
mean  to  say  that  the  period  of  6  X  52  years  =  312  years  may  not 
have  had  a  name,  nor  that  "  ahau  katun"  may  not  be  the  name  of 
some  period,  but  so  far  we  have  no  trustworthy  contemporary 
evidence  of  either  of  these  statements. 


JUN2  2l9b^  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

ANTHROPOLOGY  LIBRARY 

This  publication  is  due  on  the  LAST  DATE 
stamped  below. 


fi- 2  4  ^67-7 

RECEWfi: 

WR    3'67-9/^J 

4 

!LOAN  0~wT 

FEB  1^1972 

JUN  14  197f 

i 

■77 

RB  17-60m-8,'60 
(B3395sl0)4188 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


